Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#91

Post by jstalin »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #37
jstalin wrote: post #21

I cut the cable TV cord three years ago, when it was costing me over $100 a month. I don't miss it one bit. In fact, when I go over to a friend's house and watch some TV I feel like it's just grating noise. I have broadband Internet at $35 a month (about 20mbps), Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, and Netflix, and I have more than I need. I spend a lot less time wasting time flipping channels and watching commercials. I total…

So are all the shows you watch on Netflix purely ones created by Netflix and not ones that came from one of those ... those TV channels?

I don't know... and I don't care.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#93

Post by gibybo »

spiritplumber wrote: post #88
hrkristian wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question is, at what point does traditional TV channels become so unpopular that they're simply not worth operating anymore? Perhaps the better question is, when does traditional TV become so unpopular those satellites taking up geosynchronous orbit space get dumped into the oceans?

Roughly never -- the satellites would just be repurposed. Sending mass to geostationary is EXPENSIVE. Like, 100k$/kilogram.

I've been wondering what Direct TV will do with its satellites in 10-20 years when it doesn't make sense to use them for TV anymore. I haven't been able to imagine any significant uses, have you?

There's weather services (for ships and aircraft outside of ground station range), radio (but this is really niche), high latency internet (for, say, cruise ships), maybe some other small niche services. But what's going to replace the $30 billion in revenue they get from TV subscriptions today?

Who is going to buy their multi-billion dollar satellite fleet?

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#94

Post by jseliger »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #3

Good riddance. I cut the cord about a year and a half ago and replaced my cable box with a Roku box. There was a brief period where I missed the background noise but now I find broadcast/cable television unbearably grating. Frankly I think the cable companies brought it upon themselves with the constant loud commercial interruptions, the garbage programming, and the utterly miserable cable box interfaces.

Good riddance

The downside is that cable subscribers subsidize the handful of TV shows I actually want to watch. Individually, every person who quits makes a rational decision, but when everyone quits we don't get a lot of good shows.

Maybe Netflix or Amazon or whoever will take up the slack. Or maybe those shows will just go away.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#95

Post by anigbrowl »

chaostheory wrote: post #63
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from that. Younger viewers are also more likely to have school work as kids or college students, and as young adults they spend more time running around exploring the world, seeking a mate, and so on. On the other hand, when they settle down viewing patterns can change. Also, bear in mind that now many current shows are competing with older shows available throug…

> Also, bear in mind that now many current shows are competing with older shows available through services like Netflix; they make less money up front, but the 'long tail' gets fatter for quality or cult shows. I don't think services like Amazon or Netflix counts as TV even though they carry a lot of TV episodes

I guess I didn't make myself clear. People may be watching less broadcast and cable TV at time-of-broadcast, but that doesn't necessarily mean less time spent watching entertainment produced specifically for television. Broadcasters (which I'll use here to include cable TV channels like HBO etc.) have services like Hulu through which they capture revenue, and they are also willing to finance the production costs of TV series if they are going to get some of the long-tail revenue from Netflix etc. The lower initial viewership aka TV ratings doesn't necessarily indicate a lower lifetime audience. That's why you don't see the stocks in freefall even though superficially the audience appears to be shrinking.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#96

Post by 6thSigma »

With the NBA and NFL starting to allow online streaming of their games, I am seeing less and less reasons to keep my cable. Netflix, Hulu, NBA League Pass, and NFL Sunday Ticket would cover 90% of my cable consumption. The other 10%, HBO, is rumored to be considering a standalone subscription service.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#97

Post by InclinedPlane »

pan69 wrote: post #89
InclinedPlane wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'll actually write something more substantive on the subject, there's a lot of depth to it. For now I'll just point out that many young creators in video are falling into the youtube sphere of influence. A lot of independent video producers have switched from using their own proprietary video distribution systems to merely hosting their videos on youtube. The monetization difficulties are made up by the ease o…

I'm not to sure what you're trying to say but to me it sounds like you're implying that Google owes people who want to create video content a living. That Google should supply tools and a monetisation model to people who want to make a living of making videos. I don't think it works that way. Google does what it thinks is best for them and if the current model is that, than so be it. You rightfully pointed out some s…

Owes? Hardly. But it's stupid for them not to. Someone who earns a living via their videos is someone who is able to continue to do so, which draws in more viewers and keeps the talent within youtube's purview. Also, the more tools youtube provides for monetization and the more money flowing into creators bank accounts the more money youtube can make by taking a percentage, instead of having to rely solely on ad dollars.

The ad market is huge, but the entertainment market is much larger.

Content on youtube, whether it's "crap" or not, should be monetizable if it's capable of being supported. Currently the basic tool that youtube provides for that is a crappy ad system and a tiny cut of the ad revenues. They could, and should, do so much more. They have the opportunity to make their viewers and their creators not just users but customers. They have the opportunity to take a bite out of the multi-trillion dollar worldwide entertainment budget. They have the opportunity to have works of legitimate value (not just viral videos and pop phenomena) find a home on youtube and for youtube to become to be associated with works of quality instead of works of frivolity.

There's already lots of good stuff on youtube, but most of the best stuff is made at a loss. Youtube is perhaps the foremost instructional video publisher in history already, for example, but almost nobody publishing those videos is making a decent RoI on their efforts through youtube.

Web video is a medium and youtube is the apotheosis of that medium. To downplay that medium is as short-sighted as downplaying literature or film. There will be "youtube shakespeares" in the 21st century. There will be web videos that we find as powerful and meaningful as any other form of art (if there aren't already). I can say this with certainty because it relies on the simple fact that humans will always create art in any medium. If you give a man a steel barrel he'll create a steel drum, if you give a man a plastic barrel he'll create STOMP. It's really only a matter of time.

But by the same token, the fewer tools that google puts in the hands of creators and the more difficult it is for creators to make a living off of their creations the more potential will be wasted. Imagine how different the world would be if Elvis or The Beatles couldn't have made a living off of his voice and guitar.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#98

Post by saryant »

krapp wrote: post #76
purringmeow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's not all! Insane copyright prevents a lot of people from legally watching popular series. I am in Europe and there is no legal way for me to watch say "The Walking Dead" or any other series. So what do I do when I don't get proper service? Piracy - it gives me on demand HQ content. I wonder when TV networks will move into the 21st century. The next network delivers cheap, on demand HD content worldwide will…

Funny enough I get Doctor Who and Top Gear the same way, being an American, so I guess it all balances out....

Isn't Doctor Who now broadcast the same day in the US as in the UK?

I know the last season was. And it's available next day on iTunes. That excuse doesn't really hold up here.

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#99

Post by krapp »

saryant wrote: post #98
krapp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough I get Doctor Who and Top Gear the same way, being an American, so I guess it all balances out....

Isn't Doctor Who now broadcast the same day in the US as in the UK? I know the last season was. And it's available next day on iTunes. That excuse doesn't really hold up here.

I don't have/am not willing to pay for BBC America...

Re: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats That Prove It

#100

Post by anigbrowl »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #51
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from that. Younger viewers are also more likely to have school work as kids or college students, and as young adults they spend more time running around exploring the world, seeking a mate, and so on. On the other hand, when they settle down viewing patterns can change. Also, bear in mind that now many current shows are competing with older shows available throug…

But you can see that the trend is downward in each younger demographic. Also you'll notice that the figures from comparable cohorts stay pretty steady over time. For example, the 2011 18-24 figures are similar to the 2013 25-34 figures, and the 2011 12-17 figures are similar to the 2013 18-24 figures. The data from just that chart is not complete enough to follow a particular group as it ages but still it looks like…

I see your point but don't fully agree. There's only 3 data points for each cohort, and the change seems to be within the margin of error, at that. Have you considered that the year-on-year decline might also be correlated with the modest increase in economic growth over the last few years? This occurs to me because I notice that the older two cohorts (which would have the highest number of retirees) actually show a slight increase in viewership for this year over 2012.

I do think TV is in long term decline, though as I explained in a nearby comment I think that's more to do with the model of TV distribution than production. The subheading on the graph actually acknowledges this (saying that streaming video services are disrupting the traditional pay TV audience model), but the headline is misguided - I'm not convinced people are spending that much less time sitting in front of the TV than before.

To be honest, I'm a bit surprised the decline isn't steeper, although I'm basing that partly on changes in my own viewing habits (n=1) as the selection on Netflix improves - Iwatch about 6 hours of news and 4 hours of entertainment on TV in a typical week, but since rescuing a dog has made it hard to go to the movies, over the last few months we've been systematically working our way through every episode of Star Trek instead.

Post reply on HN